Too bad about his cancer, I didn't know that. Herman Cain is a great guy but not the next President. I didn't hear the long version of his Mosque point, it was something to the effect that being Muslim means favoring a state established religion and a religion-run state, violating of our 1st amendment and community standards therefore citizens should have a right to block that in their neighborhood?? I don't agree and didn't take Crafty to imply he did either, but if there was a valid point in there, a serious candidate needs a better political sensitivity and awareness of what comments will sidetrack, not lead us to the solution for all that is going wrong right now. Bachmann will be next to digress or sidetrack if I were to guess.

JDN: Doug is right. My statement did not take sides. Please read more carefully.

PS: But not to duck the issue. I do have sympathy for the point that Cain makes: As Doug notes, the we do not have the full version of his views on this subject, but generally I regard it as valid to note that Islam theocratic i.e. both a religion and a political ideology-- and the political ideology is seditious to the American Creed. This I think needs to be stated plainly, openly, and fearlessly.

PS: I also oppose freedom of religion for the Aztec religion of human sacrifice.

If anyone wants to take this further please use the Legal Issues presented by the War with Islamic Fascism thread.

"PS: I also oppose freedom of religion for the Aztec religion of human sacrifice."

More of the ignorant, Aztecaphobic hate speech typically found here. Not every Aztec engaged in human sacrifice and those that did were just a small group of radicals that in no way represent the vast majority of peaceful Aztecs who just wanted in live in peace with the other pre-columbian civilizations they forcefully conquered and sacrified to their gods.

Next to generalized distemper in Republican circles over their presidential candidates, the second most-offered opinion on the race is that people wish Paul Ryan were running. The Wisconsin congressman and House Budget chairman says he's not, but the discontented, especially independents, keep saying they wish he were.

I am beginning to think that the Draft Ryan movement is about something other than Paul Ryan. And that something is disagreement with the simple notion that all that matters is finding a hero who can defeat Barack Obama. Voters sense this election is wading into deeper waters than that.

View Full Image

David Gothard .Chris Christie understands this. After Paul Ryan, New Jersey's governor is the second most-mentioned GOP presidential hero. Gov. Christie says he's not ready to run for president. He's right. Not this time. Chris Christie has remarkable political and people skills. But his success in New Jersey has much to do with the fact that he mastered the deep, complex details of his state at its moment of crisis. He knows that he is in no way prepared to bring that level of knowledge to the debate voters want about the federal crisis.

I think the American electorate understands that next year's choice of a president is not about anything so unfocused as "the future of our country." The dissatisfaction with the GOP candidates reflects the awareness that the 2012 election isn't about 50 states. It's about the financial structure of one place—the nation's capital.

In the 1960s we had civil-rights elections. In the 1980s we had Cold War and American greatness elections. In 2012 we're going to have an election about money. Washington's money and ours.

Three dormant financial volcanoes have sat beneath U.S. presidential elections for a generation: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Combined, they hold enough lava to one day turn the United States into a kind of economic Pompeii, trapped in the eternal sludge of its entitlements. Until recently, daily life went on in the U.S. from one election to the next, alongside the rumbling volcanoes. Three events changed the American electorate's view of Washington's spending commitments from watchful waiting to active case-management.

The first was the 2008 financial crisis. The damage those events did to savings, employment and people's sense of financial security forced the public to focus acutely on money—theirs and the government's. Even as people's life assets turned precarious, they read about the scale of the government's long-term revenue needs. You could be for or against the 2009 stimulus, but its $831 billion price tag hit nearly everyone as sticker shock. Wondering who exactly is going to pay for all this is no longer just conservative blowback. It is an obvious question.

With the country mesmerized by these tense, post-2008 financial issues, along came the Obama health-care initiative. Incredibly, a whole nation's people focused for a year on the details of a bill about health care and insurance. With its passage, the country knew it had a fourth long-term entitlement.

We're now engulfed by a third monumental event that is about how Washington manages money: the debt ceiling. The details of the fight over tax increases and spending cuts matter, but the political impact of one detail matters most: The debt ceiling has hit $14 trillion, and the U.S. is on the cusp of a ratings downgrade.

Non-Obama voters want a presidential contender who can do hand-to-hand policy combat with the incumbent in 2012..Podcast: Listen to the audio of Wonder Land here. .What Republicans and ideologically independent voters want is a GOP candidate willing—and more importantly, able—to engage Barack Obama frontally and in detail over the future of the spending commitments embedded in the events of the past three years and the past 70 years. Mr. Obama wants spending to rise to 25% of GDP to support those commitments for the next 70 years. Until we settle this and the taxes it implies, everything else a candidate may propose, such as devolving power away from Washington, is beside the point because it won't be possible.

Mitt Romney is the front-runner, and that status attracts attention. To date, what non-Obama voters see, and fear, is a candidate content to coast to the nomination and then conduct a blandly conservative campaign. They want a more substantive choice than that. They want to have it out over the worth or danger of Barack Obama's ideas. They want the chance to ratify Washington's enormous long-term claims on the country's wealth, or decisively reject them.

When people say they "like" Paul Ryan it is because they see him as a kind of political Navy SEAL, someone with the specialized knowledge needed to do hand-to-hand policy combat with an incumbent president who represents a once-and-for-all assertion of Washington's primacy. And make no mistake: It will take a virtual commando team of Washington insiders to run the political labyrinths to the central processing units of the country's four massive entitlement factories.

Don't read this as a Ryan endorsement. Read it as an endorsement of the discontented voters who understand they need a candidate with the skill set to take on Barack Obama with more than sophisticated blather. If that's the battleground, the president wins.

Jeb Bush on Hannity this evening sounded quite good and I was surprised. He didn't just sound like a moderate establish type. He is quite adept at highlighting the total failures of Brock and why we need to change course. All we need is a candidate who can do this with vigor and with eloquent oratory.

Jeb is not running. Perry maybe can do this? Pawlenty is just too laid back from what I have seen. Bachman is still not prime time on national/international issues.

We have to get rid of Brock. This country cannot afford figuratively and finanically another 4 yrs of this disaster or as the great Bob Grant talk show host descirbes him - this abomination!

GM, While I agree with you that the CCW rulings should be recognized nationwide, you need to read the whole clause:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof (my emphasis).

There is major difference between may and shall. And according the clause, it would seem, it leaves the enforcement to the discretion of Congress.

GM, While I agree with you that the CCW rulings should be recognized nationwide, you need to read the whole clause:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof (my emphasis).

There is major difference between may and shall. And according the clause, it would seem, it leaves the enforcement to the discretion of Congress.

Isn't a driver's license issued by the state of Utah a public act? Isn't that why a driver in a Utah registered vehicle with a Utah DL can drive through LA and NYC?

I'm not arguing, I really don't understand how a driver's license from a different state is given "full faith and credit" yet a concealed weapon license is not. The issuance of a license (driver or CCW) seems to to me to fall under the definition of a public act, thus a "shall" and not a "may" catagory.

I asked a state trooper that was teaching a class I was in on traffic code (Troopers really know traffic code, they sleep, eat and breathe it in my state) about out of state drivers who are in technical violation of state traffic code while in our state (in this case, the display of a front lic. plate). My state statute say all vehicles on public roadways MUST (not may) display a front license plate when operating a vehicle on a public roadway. The statute does not make allowance for out of state vehicles. We have a bordering state where only the rear plate is required. The trooper and every other person I've asked has never explained why that statute doesn't apply to the out of state vehicles. Is that a "full faith and credit" thing?

CCP wrote: Doug any inside word on Pawlenty?His polls numbers are not improving yet.He needs more debate Iowa exposure I guess.-------------CCP, no inside word. I have too busy and he has been too broke for me to tell him that I want to be a highly paid consultant to the campaign. If he is reading the forum, he can get that offer here.

A good article I will attach at the end here that says he is getting good endorsements in Florida including an incoming speaker of the Florida house? Isn't that Marco Rubio's old job? Only half joking, once he announces his running mate is Marco Rubio I think he will do just fine nationwide.

Yes he needs to bump the poll numbers up nationwide and especially in the states where he is spending his time and like all of them, he needs to raise money. I see he is 3rd now in Iowa, to Romney and Bachmann. Bachmann is running there as being from there, not just from a neighboring state. My take is that she will fizzle at some point but that could be after the straw poll. There is a debate coming up before the straw poll and I don't think Pawlenty will be holding his punches this next time, after the beating he took in NH for giving Obamneycare a pass. He moved his comparisons over to Bachmann once she was the star of the moment. The argument was very similar views, plus experience, accomplishments and competence.

The word is out especially to people who never heard him or met him that he is the most boring person imaginable. That actually can be good to keep expectations low and then surpass them. Those reviews don't match what Rush L said after the first debate that Pawlenty looked 'Presidential'. Besides his influence, he has a pretty good eye and ear for conservative politics. I think people also are hitting a wall with the current candidates/other candidates so they keep looking again to see if they missed the one. That phenomenon could however help Rick Perry instead of Pawlenty if he doesn't make his move soon.

My current feeling is that Romney has become a bit irrelevant, though still leading, and that Rick Perry will be the next sensation, but who knows. Even then, I think it is important to have an experienced former two term governor ready with competence and good positions on issues in second or third place that you can turn to if needed because we all know what happened to ... John Edwards, Spiro Agnew, Gary Hart, Howard Dean, Mike Huckabee, Pat Buchanan, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Dick Gephart, Michael Dukakis, John McCain, George Bush, Dick Cheney, George Romney, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Rep. Jefferson, David Wu, Anthony Weiner, etc. Politicians can lose their shine.--------------(There is a 2 minute coffee shop stump talk at the link. He is running against Barack Obama, not Romney, Bachmann etc.)

By Adam C. Smith, (Tampa) Times Political EditorIn Print: Wednesday, August 3, 2011

TAMPA — The vast majority of Floridians couldn't pick Tim Pawlenty out of a lineup. He barely registers in the polls. And there's a decent chance he'll have to quit the presidential race soon if he continues to show little momentum in Iowa.

And yet something curious is happening in Florida: Influential Republican leaders continue to line up behind the former Minnesota governor, even with little evidence he's a viable contender.

"I don't know or care if he's got a 5 percent chance or a 50 percent chance or an 80 percent chance, what matters right now is we need people who stand up for what they believe in,'' said state Rep. Richard Corcoran of New Port Richey, a Pawlenty supporter in line to be speaker of the Florida House.

Another future House speaker, former Mitt Romney supporter Chris Dorworth of Lake Mary, likened it to PC users who are satisfied with their computers and Apple users who are ardent about theirs.

"Other people support their candidate, but Tim Pawlenty people are passionate about him," Dorworth said before a Pawlenty fundraising lunch that drew about 40 people to Tampa's InterContinental hotel Tuesday.

The campaign stop was only part of a busy political week in Tampa, which, starting today, hosts the Republican National Committee's summer meeting. More than 200 people will be in town checking out the site of the 2012 Republican National Convention.

Florida is expected to have one of the earliest presidential primary contests, and on a fundraising swing that took Pawlenty, 50, through Orlando Monday evening and Tampa and Miami on Tuesday, he made clear Florida is a key part of his strategy to win the nomination.

"We're looking forward to having a robust campaign in Florida. I think we've got the earliest and best and most prominent team of political leaders, volunteer leaders in this state," he said in an exclusive interview with the St. Petersburg Times and Bay News 9 airing Sunday on Political Connections.

Pawlenty, who also schmoozed with GOP activists at the Buddy Brew coffee shop in Tampa, said he expects to compete in a potentially crucial Florida GOP "Presidency 5" straw poll in September.

But Iowa is do or die for Pawlenty, and by his own admission his campaign can't afford a weak showing in an Aug. 13 "straw poll" — a symbolic, but nonbinding vote by party activists — in Ames, Iowa. A poor showing could take him out before Florida's poll even occurs.

Angling to be the main Republican alternative to Romney, the low-key Pawlenty has brought on board top Republican consultants nationally and in early primary states, but so far he has been overshadowed by U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, a fellow Minnesotan, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a potential candidate. Most Iowa polls show Pawlenty mired in single digits well behind Bachmann and Romney.

"Every month there's the flavor of the month where somebody's thinking about running, not running, gets in, doesn't get in,'' Pawlenty said, suggesting that ultimately people will focus on people's records. He was particularly skeptical of Bachmann's staying power.

"The last thing we want is another person in that office who wasn't prepared for that office, doesn't have executive experience and, with all due respect to congresswoman Bachmann, her record of results in Congress is nonexistent," he said.

Pawlenty supporters see a person with a blue-collar background, strong faith and a record of cutting government even in Democratic-leaning Minnesota.

"When I spend time with Gov. Pawlenty, I get a comfort in his leadership style, I get comfort in his conservative philosophy, and I get comfort in his ability to beat the president,'' said state Rep. Will Weatherford of Wesley Chapel, another future state House speaker and former Romney backer.

Endorsements don't necessarily translate to votes. But they can provide credibility in a primary dominated by hard-core Republicans.

Romney has an extensive fundraising network in Florida where he campaigned hard in 2008, but Pawlenty has been winning over a new generation of under-40 Republican fundraisers and political leaders, some of whom have the opportunity to be on the ground floor of a top presidential campaign rather than a late-comer to Romney. As of June 30, Pawlenty had about $2 million on hand, compared to nearly $13 million for Romney, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

"I don't necessarily have anything to gain by getting on board," said 28-year-old state Rep. James Grant, R-Tampa, "but maybe we can build momentum by showing we have a team here in Florida and show the people that trusted us to be leaders in this state that we're willing to stick our neck out for somebody we believe is a true leader."

Saw Pawlenty interviewed by Chris Wallace yesterday. A much better performance than I had seen previously.===========

Ron Paul: The OutsiderThe Texas libertarian may not win the GOP's 2012 presidential nomination, but his views have helped reshape the party

How influential is Ron Paul?For more than three decades, Paul’s brand of uncompromising libertarianism left him on the fringes of the Republican Party. Only three of the 416 bills he has sponsored in Congress since 1997 even made it out of committee—and two of those were defeated. But events of the last three years—including the meltdown of the financial sector, massive government bailouts of private industry, and an exploding federal deficit—have turned his warnings on the dangers of debt and excessive spending into mainstream Republican thought. The Tea Party has embraced Paul’s belief that the best government is the least government, and that taxes are an intrusion on individual liberty. “Time has come around to where the people are agreeing with much of what I’ve been saying for 30 years,” Paul said in May, when he announced his third campaign for the GOP presidential nomination. “The time is right.”

Has the GOP embraced all his ideas?No. Many of them are still anathema to the Republican establishment. A self-described “strict constitutionalist,” Paul believes the federal government should do almost nothing beyond punishing fraud and warding off foreign attacks; he has denounced U.S. “militarism” and argued that the U.S. should not meddle in the Middle East or the affairs of other nations. He’s voted against everything from humanitarian relief for Hurricane Katrina victims to granting a Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks. (It wasn’t personal; he also opposed awards for Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II.) Given the chance, he’d shutter the Federal Reserve, the Internal Revenue Service, and “unconstitutional domestic bureaucracies” like the departments of Education, Energy, and Commerce. And although he’s a devout Christian, the 12-term congressman from Texas would legalize prostitution, heroin, and cocaine. “If people are only free to make good decisions,” Paul said, “they are not truly free.” He is not one to make concessions. “I don’t like the word ‘compromise,’” he said. “You give up half your beliefs.”

How did Paul come to his views?He traces his sense of personal responsibility and self-reliance to his hard-working family in Pittsburgh. At age 5, Paul started working at his father’s small dairy, earning a penny every time he spotted a dirty bottle on the conveyor belt. He later delivered newspapers and mowed lawns, and helped pay his own college tuition. While studying medicine at Duke University, he discovered the work of Austrian economists Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, who championed unregulated markets and sound currency. When President Nixon abandoned the gold standard in 1971, Paul said, “I decided to speak out.” He predicted that a Federal Reserve delinked from gold would print too much money, resulting in a housing bubble, a devalued dollar, massive foreign borrowing, and recession. He still sees a return to the gold standard as the only way to put the U.S. back on a secure financial footing.

What kinds of people support Paul?His unusual ideas have attracted an equally unusual band of supporters, ranging from pot-smoking college students to hard-core fiscal conservatives. What they have in common is fervent enthusiasm for his message of individual liberty. “When people come to believe in Ron Paul, there is a passion that burns within us,” said Elizabeth Day, 57, a 2012 Paul campaign volunteer. His fans back their love with money: Paul’s presidential campaign received $4.5 million in donations in the second quarter of 2011—more than all of his competitors except Mitt Romney. The Paulites also turn out en masse whenever there’s a GOP presidential straw poll.

Can Paul win the 2012 presidential nomination?History suggests not. In 1988, when Paul ran as the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate, he won just 0.5 percent of the vote; in the 2008 GOP primaries, he took 5.6 percent. Today Paul is polling between 7 and 8 percent, far behind Republican front-runners Romney and Michele Bachmann. Ironically, the resonance of Paul’s anti-Washington message could be undermining his 2012 campaign. The GOP field is crowded with candidates who have adopted his argument for stripped-down government. Paul’s rivals, moreover, aren’t tied to libertarian policies that spook most Republicans, such as legalizing heroin and bringing all U.S. troops home. “The conservatives who might have gone with him in the past have enough other choices this time,” said Fran Wendelboe, a former Republican New Hampshire state representative.

So why is Paul running?The message has always been more important than the office for Paul, who will retire from Congress next year. He sees every TV interview or Republican debate as a chance to persuade more Americans of the merits of libertarianism, and to wake them up to the “tyranny” of central government. As awareness of his stance grows, he believes, so does the chance that a like-minded candidate—perhaps his son Rand Paul, a Tea Party idol and Kentucky senator—might one day win the White House. “Politicians don’t amount to much,” said Paul, “but ideas do.”

Civil rights vs. the free marketThe 1964 Civil Rights Act helped end racial segregation in the U.S. But if Paul had been in Congress at the time, he would have voted against this landmark piece of legislation. His problem with the law, he recently explained, was its “property rights element,” not the fact that it brought about greater racial equality. In Paul’s strict libertarian ideology, the federal government has no right to tell a private business what it can or cannot do on its own property. So any hairdresser who wants to bar black people from his or her salon should be free to do so. Paul says that this argument doesn’t make him a racist, and he contends that racist businesses would be punished by customers, and by the free market itself. Any business owner that did ban blacks, he said, “would be an idiot and out of business.”

"Saw Pawlenty interviewed by Chris Wallace yesterday. A much better performance than I had seen previously."

I saw that also. Better but still just slightly off message. The question should not still be, does a two term governor have more executive experience than a 3rd term congresswoman. Instead of dismissing her efforts, he should have emphasized how badly we need her holding feet to the fire in the House - to get things done in his administration. The question in this race is, who will stand next to President Barack Obama a year from this fall with a limited government, pro-growth agenda and win the debate, the election and the mandate to turn this ship around.

"The question in this race is, who will stand next to President Barack Obama a year from this fall with a limited government, pro-growth agenda and win the debate, the election and the mandate to turn this ship around."

And as more and more see "we" are on the "wrong track" such a candidate could win easily in a landslide and hopefully bring more legislatures with the same philosophy in for the *correction of our direction*.

I know what you’re thinking. “It seems like just yesterday that he was talking about a ‘new sense of urgency’ on deficits and job growth.” You’re wrong, though. It was two days ago. Maybe the mood passed?

Over to you, Zero Hedge guy:

We bring you this special announcement courtesy of the White House which has informed that American plebs that following a fantastic job well done, in which the market is now back to pre-QE2 levels, unemployment is near record highs, delays for presidential press meetings compare with Newark airplane take offs, pessimism is at record highs, America’s credit rating has just been downgraded, the country was nearly bankrupted, and sales of end of the world provisions are through the roof (not to mention ammunition), president Obama is taking a well-deserved vacation at Martha’s Vineyard at the end of the month…

Our advice: buy ELY stock: with the market about to implode, the president is sure to make at least one company’s year.

The Bidens have already decamped to the Hamptons, you’ll be pleased to know, and plenty of European leaders are still on vacay despite the tremors in the eurozone and ominous economic forecasts coming out of Germany. Although that’s beginning to change: Sarkozy canceled the rest of his trip to deal with the risk that France is next up for a downgrade and the Netherlands’ parliament recalled its prime minister to discuss the Greece bailout agreed to last month.

But you know what? If O is dead set on a little Vineyard frolicking while the global economy shudders, let him go. He knows the political risk of getting caught by a photographer playing hacky sack on a day when the market drops another 500 points. (It was down 519 today; two of the top 10 biggest Dow drops in market history have occurred within the past three days.) His approval rating’s already perilously close to breaking through the 40th-percentile floor; 73 percent say the country’s on the wrong track; and just one in four Americans still has confidence in the federal government to solve economic problems. The country’s given up on him and on Congress, so what would be accomplished by having him hang around the White House to watch Europe and the NYSE implode? If he wants to give a speech mumbling about “recommendations” for the economy that he plans to get around to issuing one of these days, he can do it from the beach. Have a blast, champ. Click the image to watch.

GM, The ink is barely dry where I gave the Pawlenty campaign all of that material. I love the commercial, I'm glad they are reading the forum and as CCP suggested, I am happy to work for an IOU until they can get together the cash to put me on payroll.

Bigdog, I agree with the D.U. professor / LA TIme piece regarding third parties. Now is the time for centrists on both sides to flex their muscles and have some say on who will be the nominee. especially IMO on the Dem side. Picking up from a precious discussion, can you imagine the waves that could be made if someone like Sen. Jim Webb distanced himself from the President and announced his candidacy right now or after Labor Day? Giuliani is still looking at it from the R. side, also Huntsman is considered centrist. Voters in primaries have been known to deliver surprises.

If someone as far to the right as Bachmann (or Cain or Paul or Santorum) becomes the nominee, I think the emergence of at least one prominent 3rd party entrant is near certain. I can't read into the views of the author but I'm sure the LA Times gets it that the only way a Bachmann type can win is if a serious third party contender steals the energy from the center of the room.

I happen to be a Christian, I go to church most Sundays, but I'm not comfortable with those running on their piety, or public claims of their strong Christian faith. In Iowa, it seems to be a race to see who is "more Christian". Each candidate is loudly proclaiming the depth of their Christian faith. Yet, I see nothing wrong with a Mormon, a Jew, or a Buddhist running or being elected President.

I like the quote from Matthew 6:5-6:"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others ... but when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen."

The following link references the virtues of Perry for President. That may be true, but not IMHO because he's the "most Christian" among the group running.

Yet I read the following...

The big brains gathered east of the Hudson and Potomac Rivers believe that Mitt Romney is the candidate to beat. But they are unable to hear what Rick Perry is saying. The Christian prayer rally in Houston was a very loud proclamation to fundamentalists and Teavangelicals, which said, "I am not a Mormon." The far right and Christian fundamentalists have an inordinate amount of influence in the GOP primary process and, regardless of messages of inclusion, very few of them will vote for a Mormon.

"We think a them Mormons as bein' in kind of a cult," one of the Houston rally attendees told me. "I couldn't vote for one a them when we got a real Christian like Governor Perry runnin'."

Perry, of course, can't come right out and print bumper stickers that say, "Rick Perry -- 2012 -- Not a Mormon." But he doesn't have to. He's wearing his faith like a power tie while Romney stays quiet as a tabernacle mouse on the topic of religion."

"...those running on their piety, or public claims of their strong Christian faith. In Iowa, it seems to be a race to see who is "more Christian". Each candidate is loudly proclaiming the depth of their Christian faith."

Really? As it seems so common, I've seen no evidence of what you declare, certainly not linked or quoted in the post.

Rick Perry who is not a candidate at this point hosted a prayer conference - not in Iowa.

Pawlenty who I have followed the closest was raised Catholic and attends an extremely large active evangelical congregation and I have never heard him mention that. He switched churches once in his life, to appease his wife not to further his career. He never wore it on his sleeve as Governor. Seems to me Cain pushes his business background and the Mormons in the race never brag about that - so I have no idea where this quadrennial criticism comes from.

Bachmann was never not a Christian conservative and keeps winning elections based on her values and her view of constitutional principles. She started her public career by with knocking out an 18 year incumbent RINO from her local senate district, mainly for his support of the liberal educational agenda. If people are offended, they can vote against her. Better yet if RINOs were not complicit across the country in liberal governing, this home-based conservative activist's career never would have included a run for office.

Perry's (running for nothing) prayer event was for people who wanted to be part of a prayer event, political issues never came up, nor was he in Iowa. He may have even delayed his candidacy to the highest office for the exact concern you articulate, that this long scheduled event, important to him, might be taken wrong - by people who won't vote for him anyway.

Both sides go to the places of worship to meet the people. The biggest phony in the group is the one who boasts he is Christian but still hasn't picked a Washington church in his 7th year in Washington, or a pastor he could really relate to since the famed G*d DAMN America black separatist advocate took his retirement. The incumbent has faith that an all-present God is over at the golf course too, on a sunny, summer Sunday morning.

The other religious phony from my point of view is Keith Ellison who thank God is not running.

"Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, refers to God so frequently in the context of her political ambitions that you would think He was her running mate. At the Faith and Freedom Conference, she treated the audience to a prayer of her own design:"Lord, we know there are things we have done in our nation that have not been pleasing in your sight," she sorrowfully intoned, "Lord, we ask your forgiveness for that."

It requires great chutzpah to beg divine forgiveness for the policies of your political opponents.

Not to be outdone by his fellow Minnesotan, Pawlenty countered in July with a six-minute campaign video to prove that he was the most Christian after all. Interjecting tender stories about his wife's peerless piety with cranky condemnations of same-sex marriage, Pawlenty then blinked into the camera and assured voters, "My faith is very important to me, and it influences all that I do, and it informs people about what my values are."

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich may not be able to boast about Christian values in his personal life, but he has vowed to defend his grandchildren from the imminent threat of "a secular atheist country" or, somewhat inconsistently, political domination by radical Islamists. Gingrich has also promised to resist the fearsome "homosexual agenda" on the grounds that he supports "pro-classical Christianity," a hitherto-undiscovered Christian sect that may be imaginary."

I would prefer to see a race based on the issues, not who claims to be the "most Christian". Not to mention as I said, I see nothing wrong with electing a Mormon. For that matter, someone who did not profess strong faith in any religion, yet if most qualified deserves to be President.

Good grief, that's all you got. Wasted my time once again trying to answer nothing.

You use quotes around " "most Christian" ", Gov. Pawlenty "claims to be the "most Christian" " but... HE DIDN'T. Maybe Tina Fay said it. The quote is of 'CNN Opinion', not Pawlenty. What a bunch of BS. Everyone asks candidates about values and religion. The campaign releases a video that addresses that so they can get on with questions about public policy. You think they are lying, wearing it on their sleeve or excessively religious?? Does he preach about Jesus Christ in his Iowa stump speeches? No, but he called for an end to ethanol subsidies in Iowa and promises to repeal Obamacare. Is their one word or sentence in that video that actually offends you? http://action.iowastrawpoll2011.com/ Is his view about separation of church and state wrong? I don't think so. Of the Founders? No. "My faith is very important to me, and it influences all that I do"? Outrageous! He turned to his faith for strength and comfort as a teenager when his mom died rather suddenly. Wimp! He switched churches/denominations to his wife's church before he married her. Flipflopper! His faith guides him in all his decisions. Panderer! Mary Pawlenty got her faith from her parents. Theft! Unbelievable.

What the hell does "most Christian" mean anyway, to the atheist liberal CNN writer (much less Teavangelical!). He doesn't say - just throws it out there for people to repeat and pass on - in "quotes". Christians I know don't EVER talk that way. Maybe they challenge themselves to be a better Christian - a better religious person - to use the concept more openly in the context of threads and posts here designed to challenge people to think and behave better. That is offensive? Out of bounds in a Presidential campaign??

John Kerry and Barack Obama each made very strong statements about their faith, then largely ignored the teachings, as near as I could tell. Where were you then? Did you accuse them of trying to be the most Christian? No because the double standard is an essential component of the criticism.

Al Gore running for President said: "I think the purpose of life is to glorify God. I turn to my faith as the bedrock of my approach to any important questions in my life." "Faith is the center of my life. " New York Times, May 29, 1999 Imagine THAT.

I would hope the next President knows where rights and values originate, grasp the importance of family and values life. If the candidate is atheist, a video explaining how that will affect future decisions would be helpful too.

Praying and reading the Bible are part of his everyday life, President Obama said in a wide-ranging interview broadcast Friday.

Speaking with Barbara Walters, Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama also described how they involve their daughters in daily prayer.

"Michelle and I have not only benefited from our prayer life, but I think the girls have too," the president told Walters. "We say grace before we eat dinner every night. We take turns."

"n the end, we always say we hope we live long and strong," the first lady said.

"Long and strong. And that we give back."

Obama has been dogged by criticism about his faith since he took office. A poll released in late August showed that a growing number of Americans — one in five, up from one in ten in March — say he is a Muslim.

When asked if he prays himself, the president said: "I do. Every night."

He also says that he reads the Bible, and, asked to explain why so many Americans deny that he is a Christian, blamed the internet.

Doug, I'm a little surprised at your reply. I don't think there is any question that the evangelical Christian right's influence is quite strong;disproportionate to America's belief in freedom of religion IMHO. You know better. Frankly, IMHO questioning ones beliefs is wrong. Romney may be a Mormon, as is Huntsman. Both IMHO are fine men. I see nothing wrong with either of them being elected President. That fact that they are Mormon should have nothing to do with the election, yet, it does....

I don't know, nor do I care about Obama's religious beliefs. He has had to respond because politically, being "Christian" is required to be elected. Yet, if he was Muslim, or Mormon, or Jew, and was doing a good job for America I wouldn't really care.

I will say this, while you can disagree with his policies, easy to do I think he values family and has a good family.

Frankly, from a "religious" standpoint, that is all that is important to me. I think he has good intent, albeit perhaps misguided.

You read it here first folks. JDN finds political figures who publicly proclaim their christian faith problematic, except for when Obama does it, of course, because he has to for some reason that totally doesn't apply to anyone else we might think of.

*Santorum: Had some good moments, but his numbers will not noticeably improve. Time to go.*Cain: Much improved, but ditto*Ron Paul: Had several good moments, but some awkward ones. His numbers will do well, but ultimately he will not be the candidate. His distinct and confident approach to foreign affairs, loudly cheered by an audience full of his supporters, presents a contrast with the indistinct positions of the other candidates. This is a point I have mentioned previously-- traditional Rep coherence on foreign affairs, traditionally a strong issue for them, is not to be found at present.*Newt Gringrich: A good night for Newt and his numbers should move up. I like Chris Wallace, but he definitely is a Washington insider type (very funny watching him interview Glenn Beck at the height of GB's ratings-- clearly he just id not get it) and it chuckled me (and I suspect many people) to see him bitch slap CW-- who responded with self-importance.*Bachman: Held her own, numbers should remain solid, but over IMHO some chinks remain in her armor.*Pawlenty: His mission to go after Bachman I do not think served him well and a lot of his statements seemed canned. I think his numbers will compel him to withdraw. A decent man, but IMHO he just is not going to get traction.*Romney: Remains the leader.*Huntsman: remains a Bushie pipe dream. He remains a non-entity.

*Ron Paul: Had several good moments, but some awkward ones. His numbers will do well, but ultimately he will not be the candidate. His distinct and confident approach to foreign affairs, loudly cheered by an audience full of his supporters, presents a contrast with the indistinct positions of the other candidates. This is a point I have mentioned previously-- traditional Rep coherence on foreign affairs, traditionally a strong issue for them, is not to be found at present.

Paul is like the elderly dementia patient who occasionally has moments of lucidity where he pipes up with something profound and relevent, and you start thinking maybe he's not as bad as you thought. Then you look back up at him and find him finger-painting with his own excrement.....

I missed the debate and watched only the clips they made available, what someone else thinks are the more interesting moments. Pawlenty and Bachmann wasted their time and hurt themselves attacking each other. GM was right, Pawlenty should have been reading the forum and he didn't.

I didn't see much of Romney. Other than no major gaffes or punches landed, I would like to know more about what others think he did right to remain frontrunner.

The focus of the debate questions seemed to be for ratings rather than about governing. Newt addressed that pretty well.

I think the candidates (at least 2 of them) erred by thinking the event in Iowa is the straw poll. The event for the candidates was the nationally televised debate. The non-binding straw poll just tells us what a small number of Iowans think about what we are all seeing and hearing.

Pawlenty was wrong to trivialize what Bachmann has been doing in congress. He should have treated her as an ally and hoped that she stays there. The opponent is Obama. And her attack on him was weak. Is there any doubt that she voted for him twice?

Pawlenty was wrong to trivialize what Bachmann has been doing in congress. He should have treated her as an ally and hoped that she stays there. The opponent is Obama. And her attack on him was weak. Is there any doubt that she voted for him twice?

While in the final election the "the opponent is Obama" in the primaries, the "opponent" is your fellow party members. You have to win the early rounds, i.e. beat your fellow party members in the primaries, otherwise your "opponent" will never be Obama.

I've always thought this aspect of our political system to rather interesting.

JDN,You make sense when you point out that in the primary debates they should be attacking each other in an effort to set themselves apart from the rest of the pack.However, for me personally I want to see who is best to lead the country and beat Obama. To me whoever can display this skill/feat/ability or whatever you want to call it is who I am voting for.

Like Doug pointed out who is best to stand right up next to Obama point out why the direction he is taking us is into a deep ditch and how they will right the ship around. Or another way who can highlight the contrast between bigger government and smaller government personal freedom etc.

Last night I thought Newt did that well. Romney looked like he could do it. Even Santorum sounded good in that regard.

Indeed one thing I came away with was a lot more confidence and good feelings that whoever wins the Rep party will be able to take Brock apart.

The three on the bottom were Cain, Huntsman, and Paul - the latter states "so what if Iran gets nucs" - as a Jew - a total non starter for me.

"who can highlight the contrast between bigger government and smaller government personal freedom etc."

CCP, Well put. Besides who can win, who can govern. Who can steer even a Republican congress to get things right and who can bring the country along. Even with a house and senate sweep, getting 60 Senators on board will be eternally difficult.

The undefeated George W. Bush proved that even winning the election twice is not good enough. You have to keep winning every day, keep leading in the right direction AND keep bringing the people with you. Peaking today or in Nov 2012 alone will not save the Republic.

WSJ Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot on last night's debate and the race:

Romney's Debate Luck

By PAUL A. GIGOT

Mitt Romney is a weak presidential front-runner by historical standards, but you wouldn't have known it from Thursday night's Iowa debate. He sailed mainly above the fray on a stage where everyone else was jostling for position behind him. More prepared than he was in 2008, the former Massachusetts governor batted away attempts to challenge his record on jobs and health care in a format that didn't invite follow-up queries or deeper debate.

Mr. Romney was helped by the multitude of pretenders. Tim Pawlenty is the only other plausible GOP nominee on stage, but he got locked in a cage match with Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann. The former Minnesota governor with a genuine record of accomplishment must be asking himself how he got to this point. He was no doubt told he had to challenge Ms. Bachmann so he doesn't finish behind her in Saturday's Iowa straw poll, but the inevitable result was that he looked smaller than he is.

Ms. Bachmann held her own in the scrum, but Mr. Pawlenty and former Sen. Rick Santorum scored by noting her gift for "showmanship not leadership." Her admirers like her willingness to fight, but her claim that the Standard & Poor's downgrade of U.S. debt vindicated her refusal to vote for a debt-ceiling increase illustrates why voters will never trust her with the White House and I doubt even the nomination.

Had Republicans forced a post-Aug. 2 shutdown of government services and risked default, Moody's and Fitch would have joined S&P in downgrading U.S. debt. Either Ms. Bachmann knows this, in which case she is merely playing to the talk radio GOP base. Or she doesn't know it, which makes her unready to be president. The Romney camp is hoping she wins the straw poll and the caucuses next year because it will make its road to the nomination easier. Her main achievement in the end may be to fatally wound Mr. Pawlenty.

With Texas Gov. Rick Perry entering the race, Mr. Romney is about to get more serious competition. But don't be surprised if other candidates look at the weak field, and at President Obama's sinking poll numbers, and decide to jump in after Labor Day.

"The former Minnesota governor with a genuine record of accomplishment must be asking himself how he got to this point. He was no doubt told he had to challenge Ms. Bachmann so he doesn't finish behind her in Saturday's Iowa straw poll, but the inevitable result was that he looked smaller than he is."

I think Tim would be better off just forgeting Bachman and taking it right to Brock. Highlight his strong points and why he can straighten out the country. Bachman will likely eventually self destruct or become moot as people see being stubburn alone is not enough. I am still scratching my head at Morris calling her a "genius". I must be missing something.

I notice Gigot totally ignores Newt. If Newt keeps doing what he did last night than that will be proven a mistake.